|
Wyoming Lawyer Search - Listings for Cotton John C Atty
Name: Cotton John C Atty
Address: 222 S Gillette Ave Ste 601 Gillette, WY 82716
Phone Number: 307-682-9887
|
Specialties:
|
Product Liability Law
Wrongful Death Law
Workers Compensation, Employee Benefit & Labor Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
USCA10 Opinion 05-9000.wpd FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit March 9, 2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT RONALD F. VAN SCOTEN; CYNTHIA G. VAN SCOTEN, Petitioners - Appellants, No. 05-9000 vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT (T.C. No. 24946-96) Terri A. Merriam (and Wendy S. Pearson, Pearson & Merriam, P.C, with her on the briefs), Seattle, Washington, for Petitioners - Appellants. Anthony T. Sheehan (and Bruce R. Ellisen, Tax Division, Department of Justice, and Eileen J. O'Connor, Assistant Attorney General, on the brief), Washington, D.C., for Respondent - Appellee. Before KELLY, HENRY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges. KELLY, Circuit Judge. Taxpayer-Appellants Ronald and Cynthia Van Scoten (collectively, the "Van Scotens") appeal from the Tax Court's decision in Van Scoten v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-275, 2004 WL 2785918 (2004) ("T.C. Memo"), holding them liable for an accuracy-related penalty of $2,872 imposed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("Commissioner") as a result of their negligence in claiming losses from a cattle partnership they were invested in during the 1991 tax year. Our jurisdiction arises under 26 U.S.C. 7482(a)(1), and we affirm. Background The accuracy-related penalty at issue in this case arises from adjustments of partnership items on the Van Scotens' 1991 Federal income tax return. The adjustments are the result of the Van Scotens' investment in a partnership organized and promoted by Walter J. Hoyt III ("Mr. Hoyt"). I. Mr. Hoyt and the Hoyt Organization Mr. Hoyt's father was a nationally recognized breeder of shorthorn cattle, one of the three major breeds of cattle in the United States. In order to expand his business and attract investors, Mr. Hoyt's father, in the late 1960s, began organizing and promoting cattle breeding partnerships. Before and after his father's deat...
EXCEL CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES DEPT FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit FEB 15 2005 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT EXCEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. No. 04-9540 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent. PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (Agency No. D-99-0010) John R. Fleder, of Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C., Washington, D.C. (Timothy B. Mustaine and Jeff P. DeGraffenreid, of Foulston Siefkin LLP, Wichita, Kansas, and Philip C. Olsson and Brett T. Schwemer, of Olsson, Frank and Weeda, P.C., Washington, D.C., with him on the briefs), for Petitioner. Stephen M. Reilly, Senior Counsel (James Michael Kelly, Deputy General Counsel, and Margaret M. Breinholt, Assistant General Counsel, with him on the brief), Office of the General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Before BRISCOE, MURPHY, and O'BRIEN, Circuit Judges. BRISCOE, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Excel Corporation seeks review of a decision and order issued by respondent United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) finding that Excel violated 202(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act), 7 U.S.C. 192(a), and an implementing regulation, 9 C.F.R. 201.99(a), by failing to disclose to hog producers a change in Excel's formula for computing the "lean weight" of hog carcasses. Excel also challenges the decision and order to the extent it directs Excel to cease and desist from engaging in certain related practices. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2342(2), we grant Excel's petition for review for the sole purpose of modifying the cease and desist language of the decision and order. As so modified, the decision and order is enforced. I. Factual background Excel, a corporation based in Wichita, Kansas, is estimated to be the fourth or fifth largest hog slaughterer in the United States. ROA, Vol. V, Doc. 155 at 13, 82....
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT -* EARL C. MCDANIELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.No. 01-2086 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. -* -* RANDOLPH F. LOVETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.No. 01-2087 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. -* -* ALTON E. BROWN, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v.No. 01-2088 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. -* Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CA-00-1482-4-12, CA-00-2053-4-12, CA-00-2054-4-12) Argued: May 7, 2002 Decided: July 29, 2002 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the majority opinion, in which Chief Judge Wilkinson joined. Judge Luttig wrote a dissenting opinion. _ COUNSEL ARGUED: Keith Moss Babcock, LEWIS, BABCOCK & HAW- KINS, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants. John Berk- ley Grimball, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: James H. Renfrow, Jr., Dillon, South Carolina, for Appellants. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. _ OPINION NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: The Secretary of Agriculture denied the applications of farmers Earl McDaniels, Randolph Lovett, and Alton Brown for livestock disaster relief because each farmer's 1997 gross revenue exceeded $2.5 million, making him ineligible for assistance under applicable Department of Agriculture regulations. In this action, brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, the farmers challenge these regula- tions, contending that they are arbitrary and capricious because gross revenue is defined to include pass-through funds - in this case, sales of bailment tobacco - in which the farmers had no interest. The district court held that the applicable regulations were "reason- ab...
|
|
|